An Hon. Senator: That’s right.

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: My question is for the Government Representative in the Senate. The Journal de Montréal has just published a whole section that characterizes the federal government’s immigration goal as a trap for Quebec and an existential threat to the survival of French in America.

I personally reject this perspective, which fuels xenophobia and the fear of immigration in Quebec. That said, I don’t believe that the federal government can simply ignore these alarmist scenarios. Ottawa has the responsibility to rebut these arguments and explain its objectives to reassure people. Senator Gold, what does the federal government intend to do to explain its policies, demonstrate the benefits of immigration and reassure people?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. First of all, it should be noted that Quebec sets its own immigration targets and has exclusive authority over selecting the majority of its immigrants, and thanks to the agreement between Canada and Quebec, the government offers Quebec financial compensation to ensure the francization of newcomers. The government of Canada always respects Quebec’s jurisdiction over immigration.

Ensuring the vitality of francophone communities remains a key priority for the federal government. The government is proud to announce that it has reached its target of 4.4% francophone immigration outside Quebec. In 2022, Canada admitted over 16,371 French-speaking immigrants outside Quebec. That is a nearly 450% increase since 2015, and that is the largest number of francophone immigrants admitted to Canada outside of Quebec since data tracking began in 2006.

The government firmly believes it can grow the economy while protecting the French culture and language.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Government leader, in December 2021, Prime Minister Trudeau appointed Liberal MP Mark Gerretsen as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate). According to the Library of Parliament, Mr. Gerretsen is the only parliamentary secretary in Canadian history to hold this title. I’m not entirely sure what this parliamentary secretary does to assist you in your work; I don’t think he helps you prepare answers to our questions. I do know, however, that last week he made false claims about the information provided to Michael Chong about Beijing’s threats against him and his family.

Leader, last year, you told this chamber the following:

Disinformation, in its various forms, is a really serious threat to our society, to our democracy and to all Canadians.

Given these words, do you agree with the false claims made in the other place by your parliamentary secretary?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): I am not in a position to comment on the claims to which you are referring. However, I can tell you that Mr. Gerretsen is someone with whom I meet regularly, and who, indeed, is serving as the parliamentary secretary, as well as serving Minister Holland in an exemplary fashion and providing an additional link between the government and our office, which we use in our work.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): I will ask my first question. I won’t receive an answer, but at least the question will be on the record.

Leader, it has been widely reported that the official residence of Canada’s Prime Minister at 24 Sussex Drive is now formally closed, in part due to rodent infestation. In February, an answer provided to one of my written questions on the Senate Order Paper showed that the Trudeau government spent over $800,000 of taxpayers’ money trying to come up with a plan regarding what to do with 24 Sussex Drive.

The Trudeau government has had eight years and has spent over $800,000, and they still don’t have a plan. I can’t think of a more fitting symbol for the entire Trudeau government than this: Even with decaying rat carcasses in the walls, and even after spending more than the average family home costs in Canada, they still don’t know what to do.

How many more tax dollars will be spent before the Trudeau government comes forward with a plan?

Senator Martin: Hear, hear.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): It is very regrettable, and I hope all Canadians would share the sentiment that 24 Sussex Drive has been allowed to run into such a state of disrepair that it is no longer fit for human habitation. It is unfortunate, but perhaps part of the political culture, at least in the other place, if indeed not in our country, that the previous prime ministers of both parties have been unwilling — both parties, Senator Plett, as Hansard will reveal. It is regrettable that previous governments and previous prime ministers who were aware of the deteriorating condition chose not to make investments in the ongoing maintenance of 24 Sussex for the benefit of future prime ministers. It is easy to punt the ball, because Canadians are mindful of taxpayers’ money being spent.

The Prime Minister has never lived at 24 Sussex. By the time he was elected, it was clearly in such a state, and now, some years later, we find it completely uninhabitable.

An Hon. Senator: No —

The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that a message had been received from the House of Commons returning Bill S-227, An Act to establish Food Day in Canada, and acquainting the Senate that they had passed this bill without amendment.

[English]

Hon. Bev Busson moved second reading of Bill S-12, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act.

She said: Honourable Senators, I am pleased to take the floor today to speak to Bill S-12, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act.

I’m pleased because I believe — and I hope you agree — that the goals this bill seeks to achieve go to the issue of the protection of the most vulnerable, as well as the quest by the victims of crime to have their rights considered as we strive to find the elusive balance of rights in our living Constitution.

Bill S-12 has three main objectives: first, to respond to the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada last October in R. v. Ndhlovu, which struck down elements of the National Sex Offender Registry; second, to strengthen the effectiveness of the registry; and third, to empower victims and survivors of crime by changing the rules governing publication bans and a victim’s right to information.

The reforms relating to the National Sex Offender Registry proposed in this bill come to us with significant urgency. If Bill S-12 does not receive Royal Assent prior to October 28 of this year, courts will no longer be able to register convicted sex offenders to the National Sex Offender Registry, jeopardizing the police’s ability to investigate and prevent sexual offences.

This bill is of special interest to me as a retired police officer. Early in my career, as a female member of the RCMP, many, if not all, sexual offences in my area were referred to me for investigation and interview. Under these circumstances, one might think you would become accustomed to hearing these heartbreaking details of abuse, but you never do. Any legislation that helps to investigate and prevent these crimes and support the survivors is important.

The National Sex Offender Registry was created in 2004. It provides police with the ability to access current and reliable information on registered sex offenders, including their names, aliases, addresses and descriptions of any distinguishing physical features. Police use the registry as a key tool to identify potential suspects after a sexual offence has been committed and to monitor movements of offenders in order to prevent future sexual crimes.

The registry operates under several federal laws. The Criminal Code outlines the power of the courts to order individuals to register, determines the length of the registration period and the consequences of breaching registration requirements, among other things.

The Sex Offender Information Registration Act, or SOIRA, lays out obligations of all registered offenders, which include presenting themselves in person to a registration centre every year and providing information to the police on an ongoing basis, including, for example, their address, the make and model of their vehicle and their place of work.

The other place’s Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security completed a review of SOIRA in 2009. The committee’s goal was to strengthen SOIRA as a tool for law enforcement in the face of low registration numbers due to the high degree of discretion accorded to judges and prosecutors.

In fact, many prosecutors did not bother to address the issue at all in proceedings. To remedy this, the committee recommended amending SOIRA to mandate automatic registration but allow judges to use their discretion to deviate from this rule when registration would be grossly disproportionate to the public interest. The committee recommended removing prosecutorial discretion altogether.

In 2011, the government of the day went quite a bit further than the committee’s recommendation by amending the Criminal Code to require automatic registration for all cases, without either prosecutorial or judicial discretion. This meant that registration was to occur in every case when someone was convicted of, or found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for, a designated sexual offence. These amendments allowed no exceptions in the application of the rule under any circumstances. This was one of the key issues that the Supreme Court of Canada considered in R. v. Ndhlovu. Ultimately, the court found that automatic registration in all cases was inconsistent with the Charter because it captured offenders who posed no risk of reoffending. The court concluded that this was disconnected from the purpose of the registry and thus unconstitutional.

The court suspended the effect of its decision with respect to automatic registration for one year to give Parliament an opportunity to craft a constitutionally compliant regime. Bill S-12 strives to do just that.

In the same decision, the court struck down the second element of the Criminal Code relating to the length of time for which an offender was required to register. Specifically, the court invalidated the provision requiring mandatory lifetime registration for all individuals convicted of more than one designated offence in the same proceeding. This provision was struck down immediately with retroactive effect to 2011, the date of its original inception.

In order to meet the court’s one-year deadline, we must move quickly with our study and consideration of this bill. As I noted, if a new legislative framework is not in place before October 29, 2023, the courts will no longer have the power to require sex offenders to register. This would create a dangerous gap, leaving law enforcement unable to rely on the registry for critical information that is necessary to prevent or investigate sexual crimes. We cannot allow this to happen. In this case, unfortunately, the old adage that “your urgency does not create my emergency” does not apply.

The bill proposes to retain automatic registration in two important circumstances: first, for repeat offenders; second, for those who commit child sexual offences and are sentenced to two or more years by indictment. These are two situations in which the government believes the automatic registration is justifiable as being directly related to and proportionate with the objectives of SOIRA. In this respect, these changes reflect the guidance provided by the Supreme Court of Canada and will promote public confidence in the criminal justice system’s approach to sexual offences.

In all other cases, Bill S-12 provides that registration must be ordered unless an offender can demonstrate that registration would be overly broad and grossly disproportionate. This would create a presumption of registration or, in essence, a reverse onus on the offender, which would be displaced in certain narrow circumstances where it can be justified. I note that this new regime follows the Public Safety Committee’s recommendation from their review of SOIRA in 2009.

The proposed reforms would also allow a court to order lifetime registration for individuals convicted of more than one designated offence in the same proceeding where the offences demonstrate an increased risk of recidivism. This allows courts to continue to order lifetime registration in appropriate cases, while also addressing the concerns of overreach expressed by the Supreme Court decision.

Colleagues, this brings me to the second objective of this bill, which is to strengthen the National Sex Offender Registry regime. I would like to highlight some of these proposed reforms that aim to ensure that the registry continues to be effective and efficient in law enforcement.

Bill S-12 adds to the list of offences that qualify a convicted offender for registration. Of particular note, the bill would add the offence of non-consensual distribution of intimate images to the list. This is also called “revenge porn” or “cyberharassment” and can have devastating effects on those targeted by this crime. The bill would also target so-called sextortion by adding extortion to the list when shown that it has been committed with intent to commit a sexual crime. This is an important step towards helping police identify perpetrators of offences which are becoming more and more prevalent in the digital age.

The bill also proposes a new arrest power in the Criminal Code to address the issue of non-compliance with registration obligations. Currently, it is estimated that up to 20% of individuals with obligations related to the National Sex Offender Registry are not compliant. This is not acceptable. The only legislative mechanism to facilitate compliance with the registry under the current law is to arrest the individual and lay a charge under the Criminal Code. However, laying a charge does not necessarily result in compliance. This bill would create a compliance warrant and allow the police to seek an arrest warrant to bring a non-compliant sex offender to a registration centre to fulfill their obligations under the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, or SOIRA. If the offender provides the required information, they will not be charged. This will give police the tools to bring offenders into compliance more effectively.

Another important change that the bill would accomplish would be to require registered sex offenders to provide police with 14 days’ advance notice prior to travelling as well as a list of the specific addresses where they will be staying during the course of their travels. This would allow the police enough time to conduct a risk assessment and notify appropriate law enforcement partners if necessary and allow the Canadian authorities to better fulfill their obligations, both domestic and international, under SOIRA.

I must tell you all that on a very recent visit to the RCMP’s National Child Exploitation Crime Centre, I, along with colleagues from both the Senate and the other place, heard accounts of registered offenders calling from the airport, advising of their travel plans, technically fulfilling their requirement under SOIRA but leaving no time for the police to offer effective warning to their policing partners that this potentially dangerous individual was on the way to their jurisdiction. This issue was on their wish list of changes needed and would be a welcome change to the sex offender registry regime.

This brings me to the third and equally important objective of this bill, designed to empower survivors and victims of crime through changes to the rules that govern publication bans and their right to information.

Bill S-12 proposes publication ban reforms that respond directly to calls from survivors of sexual violence, who are disproportionately women and girls. Victims deserve more agency in the criminal justice process and the ability to tell their own stories if they so choose.

The various publication ban provisions in the Criminal Code are intended to shield witnesses and victims from further harm by concealing their identity. On the one hand, a publication ban can encourage the testimony of witnesses and victims who may otherwise be fearful of coming forward and make them more likely to come forward. Some survivors and victims of crime, however, have found that publication bans have the effect of silencing or restricting them. I have been honoured to meet with victims of sexual offences who want to regain their own right to their own names. One group, called My Voice, My Choice, represented by Morrell Andrews and other survivors, put it this way:

Out of respect for the many victim-complainants who will go through the legal system to seek accountability for the harms committed against them, please remember that this is not a political issue.

We have an opportunity to be ambitious and create a better process that recognizes the inherent right of victims of sexual offences to share their stories without fear of being criminalized. It is their voice, and it should be their choice. These victims would seek consent rather than consultation in considering the publication ban, but this, I believe, is a focus for committee to consider.

Almost inconceivably, under the current system, we have seen victims charged with violating a publication ban intended for their sole protection and benefit — imagine! This is clearly unacceptable. These survivors deserve to be able to share their stories if they so choose. It’s important that it be their choice, and their choice alone. Their right to choose has been violated once by the crime itself and again by the ban, taking away their choice and their right to use their name.

In order to address this issue, Bill S-12 proposes that judges must ask prosecutors to confirm if reasonable steps have been taken to ensure that the victim has been consulted on whether or not a publication ban should be imposed. This proposal is in line with Recommendation 11 of the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, entitled Improving Support for Victims of Crime.

In addition, Bill S-12 will clarify the process to modify or revoke a publication ban after one has been imposed by codifying a process that currently exists only in the common law. The bill will also ensure that publication bans are applicable to online material that may have been published before a ban was imposed. Both measures recognize that victims and survivors should benefit from their right to change their minds.

The choice to revoke or modify a publication ban should be dictated by the wishes of the victim or survivor. However, the bill imposes a residual discretion to be given to the judge to refuse such a request if it would, for example, possibly identify a second victim involved who wishes to remain anonymous. It is expected that these types of scenarios would be extremely rare and that, for the overwhelming majority of cases, a publication ban would be lifted in cases where the victim clearly does not want it in place.

There is no handbook on a good or right way to be a victim. The legislation recognizes the choice of victims and survivors and provides them with some decision-making power. Returning power to victims and survivors of sexual violence can be essential for the healing process. It can, in some victims’ minds, prevent retraumatizing these people in the criminal justice process. In others, taking control of their names and identities is essential to their path to empowerment.

It is important that we get this right. I suspect many of you have already heard from survivors working on this issue, as I have. Survivors are looking to us to fix the publication ban regime to better empower them and treat them with dignity and respect. I look forward to working with you all to ensure we achieve this delicate balance. This is an area I think we can review at committee in consultation with these survivors to see if the language can be strengthened.

I would like to take a moment to speak to you about a victim’s right to information about the case they are involved in and the offender who has harmed them. This right is enshrined in the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights in sections 6, 7 and 8. Bill S-12 will make it easier for victims to access information about their case after sentencing or after an accused has been found not criminally responsible on account of a mental disorder. This is incredibly important to victims and to the police who are responsible for protecting them.

To achieve this goal, the bill proposes several measures. First, it would require the judge to ask the prosecutor whether they have taken reasonable steps to determine whether the victim wishes to obtain this information. Second, the bill would allow victims to express an interest through their victim impact statement. Finally, the bill would require the court to provide Correctional Service Canada and the Parole Board with the victim’s name and information if they have expressed a desire to receive this type of information.

Once again, this approach is respectful of the needs of victims and seeks to provide the flexibility required to obtain information at the time of their choosing. Note that this proposal received particular attention and support from the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime.

To conclude, colleagues, the changes contemplated by this bill will meet an urgent need to make the laws governing the National Sex Offender Registry compliant with the Charter. At the same time, the bill will make the registry better able to accomplish its vital purpose of providing police with current and reliable information to investigate and prevent crimes of a sexual nature. It will also take the opportunity to make the criminal justice system more responsive to survivors and victims of sexual offences.

These reforms are targeted, measured and sensible. They will make a tangible difference in the prevention and investigation of some of the most difficult offences under the law and will support the rights of victims who continue to struggle to recover from these life-changing crimes committed against them.

Some may suggest that the measures do not go far enough. Others will say that they go too far. However, I submit this bill will serve to help strike the balance between those two tensions and move the pendulum in a positive direction. I urge you, colleagues, to act with exigency in getting Bill S-12 to committee, where further study and survivor consultation can take place on the record. Thank you, meegwetch.

[Translation]

Hon. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu: Would the senator agree to answer a question? Senator Busson, I have some experience with victims of sexual assault, particularly those who were murdered.

A few weeks ago, I was in Camrose, Alberta, where I met a family whose mother had been killed, as well as her four-year-old child, who was murdered a few hours later by a neighbour two doors down.

That neighbour was a criminal who had a lengthy record — he had already sexually assaulted and murdered a woman in the 1980s. He was in the system. He lived in an apartment building in town. In four and a half years, he changed locations four or five times; he never notified the authorities, which was part of his release conditions. What’s more, his neighbour was a police officer.

I understand that the bill will continue to add sex offenders to the registry, but does it include a mechanism to monitor these criminals once they are in the system? The problem is that, even if we add thousands of men to the registry, once they’re in the system and then released, if they aren’t monitored, they will continue to assault children and women.

Does the bill include a mechanism to monitor these dangerous men?

[English]

Senator Busson: Thank you very much, senator. I heard that story on the news, and I was incredibly touched and offended by the fact that this was a repeat offender who victimized this woman and her child.

I believe that the new provisions of the sex offender registry will empower police to do more to make sure that they track these offenders. There is provision for stricter registration and powers that allow the police to track and register offenders who are non-compliant. I do believe this would be an impetus for police to spend more time making sure these offenders are complying with their restrictions and their conditions.

[Translation]

Hon. Paula Simons: Honourable senators, I too rise today to speak to Bill S-12, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act.

But I want to start at the beginning with how we got here, and a caution that some of these stories may be disturbing.

In March of 2011, 19-year-old Eugene Ndhlovu, an immigrant from Zimbabwe and a student at the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology, was invited by a female friend to a Jersey Shore-themed party in Edmonton. The party was billed online as a DTF event. That stands for “down to fraternize,” except the F-word used in the advertising was not “fraternize.” Ndhlovu said he didn’t want to go, that he had too much to do the next day. But the friend insisted on his attendance and told him he could stay overnight and that she would arrange a ride to work for him in the morning.

Once at the party, Ndhlovu started to drink with the woman who had invited him and with another mutual female friend. According to the agreed statement of facts, the teenager touched that second girl on her buttock and thighs. Later the next morning, the first girl, the one who had invited him to the party, woke up and found Ndhlovu was trying to put his fingers inside her. She told him no. He tried to convince her. She said no again, so he stopped and left.

He was subsequently charged with two counts of sexual assault, the first count for attempting to put his fingers inside the first woman’s vagina and the second count for touching the other friend’s bottom and leg without her permission. The young man, who had no criminal record, pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual assault and was sentenced to six months. Those convictions should have automatically put him on the sex offender registry for life, with all the onerous and humiliating consequences that would entail.

But the trial judge in Edmonton, Madam Justice Andrea Moen, exercised her common sense and determined that placing the young man on the registry in such circumstances was unwarranted, given that he had taken responsibility for his actions and shown great remorse. She also noted that placement on the registry might make him especially vulnerable to racial profiling.

Madam Justice Andrea Moen said:

The law as it stands will now place Mr. Ndhlovu on police radar for the rest of his life anytime a sexual offence is committed by a black man of average height in his neighbourhood.

She added that putting his name on the registry would bear “. . . no connection to the object of assisting police officers in the investigation or prevention of future sex crimes. . . .”

This seems to me to have been a logical use of judicial discretion.

The sexual assault on the one woman was serious — serious enough that it led to jail time. But the second charge, the one that involved touching the second young woman on the bum and leg, was surely less so.

Indeed, one might legitimately wonder if there was some pressure on the Crown to charge Ndhlovu with two separate offences simply for the sake of putting him on the registry, especially since inclusion on the registry only became automatic in April of 2011, less than a month after the assaults took place.

The Crown appealed and won a split decision at the Court of Appeal of Alberta. It was, let me note, though, Madam Justice Ritu Khullar, who is now Alberta’s Chief Justice, who dissented and supported the ruling of the original trial judge. This split decision helped to allow for a Supreme Court appeal, and in October of 2022, Canada’s Supreme Court, in its own split decision, upheld the trial judge’s original ruling and deemed the mandatory automatic placement of sex offenders on the national registry unconstitutional.

As we have heard, the court gave the government one year to come up with a response, so now we have Bill S-12 and the political imperative to pass the bill before the clock runs down.

Under the terms of the legislation, inclusion on the sex offender registry will still be automatic for repeat offenders or those who commit sex crimes against children. But in all other cases, the defendant will have the right to challenge the registration. If the offender can demonstrate that being put on the registry would be disproportionate to the offence, then the judge can opt not to include them. As Senator Busson has just explained, the onus is reversed, and the default is to be on the list unless you can make the case that you shouldn’t be there. Then the judge will decide whether being placed on the registry is warranted, paying attention to factors including the nature and seriousness of the crime, the victim’s age and other personal characteristics, the nature of the relationship between the victim and the perpetrator, the accused’s own circumstances, whether or not the perpetrator has a criminal history and the opinions of expert witnesses.

Under Bill S-12, judges will at least be given back some of the autonomy and responsibility for passing judgment. Having heard all the trial testimony, they will then decide whether placement on the registry makes sense in a particular case, whether it’s proportionate and whether such registration will protect public safety while respecting the rights of the defendant.

There are certainly those who would argue that the whole idea of a sex offender registry is counterproductive, that such a blacklist is a crude American import that has no place in Canadian society. One could certainly make an argument that these lists are a kind of security theatre that do little to protect the public or reduce recidivism, but that they stoke public fears and public hysteria while making it harder for those who have served their sentences to reintegrate into the community and stay out of trouble.

In the words of the Supreme Court itself on the topic of these lists:

Despite its long existence, there is little or no concrete evidence of the extent to which it assists police in the prevention and investigation of sex offences.

There are certainly those who would say that the reverse onus test puts an unfair burden on defendants, reversing the balance of our criminal justice system, which gives the state — the Crown — the legal burden of making its case.

Yet, from a political perspective, I can understand why the government might hesitate to abolish these problematic registries, and is instead taking this far more modest step to comply with the Supreme Court’s direction. Still, once this bill is in committee, I hope that hard questions will be asked regarding the value of sex offender registries, or whether they are merely counterproductive political show.

The legislation before us also represents a fundamental and long overdue shift in the way we disempower and shame victims of sexual assault.

For too long, Canadian courts have slapped automatic publication bans on the names of sexual assault victims, without considering whether such bans are always in the interests of individual victims. The practice, which began almost 40 years ago, started as a noble one. The idea of so-called rape-shield laws was to protect sexual assault victims from public shame and public scrutiny, as well as to encourage them to come forward with charges by protecting their identities.

But sometimes victims want to be known. They don’t necessarily want to be protected in perpetuity — in a way that infantilizes them and robs them of agency and self-determination.

Let me provide you with an example of what I mean — it’s a case I wrote about back in my own days as a journalist.

In 2006, the kidnapping of a 10-year-old Saskatchewan boy shocked and horrified the country. The child had been snatched from his parents’ home in Whitewood, Saskatchewan, by notorious serial sexual predator Peter Whitmore. Whitmore took the boy to an abandoned farmhouse near Kipling, where he’d been holding another prisoner: a 14-year-old boy he’d abducted weeks earlier.

The 10-year-old was rescued after two days — thanks to an alert farmer who noticed signs that someone was living in the abandoned house. The boy had been chained to a bed, and forced to walk around naked while wearing a dog leash. Even after Whitmore was convicted, the boy’s trials didn’t end. He was so bullied in his small-town school — where the other children called him horrible homophobic names because of the sexual assault — that his parents finally had to withdraw him to homeschool him.

At the time of his abduction, his name and photograph were everywhere. But once the trial began, the court imposed a publication ban on his identity, and it became a criminal offence for any media outlet to print his name or picture. A decade later, it was still illegal for him to blog or post to Facebook about what he’d endured. The whole country knew the ghoulish details of his abduction, yet he was forbidden to talk about how he had survived, to share his story and to work through his pain.

Then, in late 2015, a Regina court finally gave Zachary Miller his name and his voice. Justice Catherine Dawson of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench granted Miller’s application to lift the ban. Miller had argued that he wanted to be known as a survivor, not a victim, and that he wanted his story to help others coping with the aftermath of abuse.

Miller, who was 20 at the time, testified:

I feel a victim under this court’s publication ban, because it has refused me the right to use my name in any form of media, which in a way has refused my rights of freedom of speech.

You may ask, “If victims can challenge bans, even if it’s expensive and time-consuming, why do we need Bill S-12?”

Well, it’s because victory isn’t assured. Take another case I wrote about: It’s the story of a young man, from the St. Paul area of Alberta, who had a sexual relationship with a female teacher when he was just 17. The teacher, who had insisted the sex was consensual, was eventually acquitted of sexual exploitation. In 2007, seven years after the trial, the young man, who was then 26, applied to have the publication ban lifted so he could finally speak out about the lasting psychological pain of being victimized by an adult he had trusted.

The Crown, to its credit, did not oppose the application, so you’d think this would have been easy. But the justice in the case refused to lift the ban, ruling that doing so — years later — would not be in the public interest. The man’s only option was an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. He did so, but the court declined to hear his case.

Thus, when misapplied, the almost unliftable publication ban revictimizes victims in the name of protecting their privacy. It’s patronizing and paternalistic. Even worse, it sends sexual assault survivors the explicit message that they have been so shamed and dishonoured — that what has happened to them is so peculiarly and uniquely disgraceful — that they must be hidden away from public view. It’s a medieval attitude to rape, informed by misogyny and homophobia, and it belongs in our past.

Bill S-12 goes some way to righting the balance. It states that a victim must be consulted before a publication ban is imposed. It also states that a court must hold a hearing for any sexual assault victim who wishes to revoke or vary their own publication ban.

But this is, again, a compromise. The request is not granted automatically. The bill states that the court must consider any material change in circumstances including the victim’s wishes. But ultimately, the court must rule not based on what the victim wants, but on whether lifting or varying the ban is “in the interests of justice.”

While the bill goes some way to re-empowering those victims who choose to speak, it also includes broader provisions to protect the privacy of those who do not wish to have their identities known. The existing law bans the publication or broadcasting of any information that would serve to identify a sexual assault victim. In this social media age, Bill S-12 widens that provision to include anyone who transmits, or otherwise makes available, information about any victim, witness or justice system participant whose identity is protected by a publication ban — a provision that would seem to cover tweets, toots, Facebook posts and even group chat gossip. I’m sure this too will be an issue of much debate in committee, as it would potentially open up to sanction not just newspaper publishers and television stations, but also lots of ordinary citizens.

Due to the Supreme Court deadline, we are under some pressure to pass this law quickly. And yet, I hope that we will allow ourselves the necessary time to study its complexities and contradictions — because these are vitally important issues that speak to our civil liberties and the safety of our communities. Thank you. Hiy hiy.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Carignan, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Plett, for the second reading of Bill S-221, An Act to amend the Governor General’s Act (retiring annuity and other benefits).

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is leave granted, honourable senators?

Hon. Nancy J. Hartling: Honourable senators, I rise today to support Bill S-253, An Act respecting a national framework for fetal alcohol spectrum disorder.

As a member of the Senate Human Rights Committee and the Indigenous Peoples Committee, and from my many years working in the community as a social worker, I am deeply aware of the impact of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, or FASD, on our most vulnerable populations.

Congratulations to Senator Ravalia for initiating Bill S-253. I would like to recognize that this bill was developed through extensive consultation with the Canada Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder Research Network, also known as CanFASD, which is a collaborative interdisciplinary research network with partners across the nation, so I am very confident that this bill is informed by the most up-to-date knowledge and expertise.

Thank you, CanFASD, for your incredible work and your ongoing commitment.

Thank you to our colleagues who have spoken in support of this bill. Today, following my speech, Senator Duncan will speak to this.

Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder is a lifelong neurological disorder that is caused when a fetus is exposed to alcohol in utero. It is the leading cause of developmental disability in Canada.

Health Canada estimates that between 1% and 5% of the population may have the disorder; however, given that it is difficult to diagnose, it often goes undetected. Some groups are more impacted by this than others. For instance, among Canada’s prison population, the number of affected people ranges from 9.8% to 23.3% for the general prison population and could be as high as 50% for Indigenous offenders.

The disorder can affect many bodily systems, but its impacts are felt primarily in the brain. Many people with FASD show no outward signs of a disability, but this may mask a range of learning difficulties and memory impairments.

Here are some examples of what people with the disorder may demonstrate: forgetting how to do something they’ve already learned; problems with social communication despite, in many cases, having strong verbal skills; trouble reading social cues and understanding others; trouble understanding abstract concepts and internalizing rules; difficulty concentrating due to impaired self-regulation, and this is made more difficult because they may find it harder to grasp abstract concepts, such as reasoning, problem solving and connecting cause and effect. People with the disorder often have disrupted school experiences, have trouble interacting with others and keeping their jobs and may encounter financial difficulties.

The impact of the social determinants of health leads to a higher risk of depression, drug and alcohol addiction, homelessness and poverty. Without adequate interventions and supports, people with FASD and their families and communities are at a greater risk of negative outcomes.

I believe prevention with a pan-Canadian approach is critical. The development of a national framework provides an opportunity to explore this further at committee.

Early intervention for women who are at risk is key to better pregnancy outcomes and also to better outcomes for children who are born with FASD. CanFASD and the Centre of Excellence for Women’s Health co-developed a made-in-Canada model based on four levels of interventions focused on prevention where each level builds on the previous one. As time doesn’t permit me to go into the details of all of their tremendous work, I will simply give you the highlights of the levels of intervention, prevention and treatment of FASD.

Briefly, the first level of intervention includes raising awareness about the risks of alcohol consumption during pregnancy and empowering women and communities with the information needed to make decisions. This can take the form of national media campaigns, developing health promotion materials and producing easy-to-understand and readily available low-risk drinking guidelines. Culturally appropriate and trauma-informed approaches are extremely important for community-based health promotion strategies, especially in the context of Indigenous communities. Increasing awareness is included as an element of the framework under Bill S-253.

The second level is a provision of safe, non-judgmental spaces for all women of child-bearing age to have discussions on reproductive health, contraception, pregnancy and substance use with their health providers. Research has pointed to the importance of “brief alcohol interventions,” which are collaborative, often informal conversations that can occur between women and their health care providers and can provide an opportunity to engage openly on alcohol use and other risk factors that may not be immediately obvious.

These interventions can be the basis for lasting change by connecting women to the supportive services they need. They are valued by health practitioners as they are seen as less stigmatizing than screening for alcohol use and as open opportunities to discuss issues related to substance use, such as mental wellness and gender-based violence.

It is critical that these conversations happen in a non‑judgmental way because the factors that lead to women drinking can be highly complex. They are often driven by a number of social determinants of health. The stigma associated with drinking during pregnancy can result in women not seeking support, so it is important that women are able to participate in these interventions and follow-up treatments without the risk of losing custody of their children.

According to research by Dr. Shimi Kang, a professor at the University of British Columbia and a recent recipient of the Governor General’s Persons Case Award, an opportunity exists in the prenatal period to help women with addiction issues as they are then more likely to engage with the health care system and are more likely to abstain or reduce their substance use during this time. However, many women face barriers such as stigma in the form of guilt or shame, fear of losing custody of their children, prejudice towards mothers with substance problems, responsibility for dependent families and lack of child care and transportation.

Two thirds of all women entering addiction treatment services report a history of sexual or physical abuse — quite a lot when you think about it — which points to the need for an assessment of abuse history among addiction patients so that their trauma-related symptoms could then be treated, resulting in better addiction outcomes and therefore reducing the risk of negative pregnancy outcomes.

Brief interventions are important because they embody the “no wrong door” approach to care, where women and girls can access resources at any juncture in their lifespan through family doctors, midwives, nurses, anti-violence support workers and social workers. This goes hand in hand with preventing intimate-partner violence.

The third and fourth levels include holistic supports for pregnant women and new mothers with alcohol abuse and other health and social problems, including supports for child development. In a study of the most effective programs for reaching pregnant women at risk, researchers noted that the provision of the following were associated with the best outcomes: access to basic needs such as food and clothing; supportive housing; child welfare support; substance use supports; trauma and violence support; women’s health services, including parenting support; cultural programs; pre- and postnatal care and peer connection.

Colleagues, these interventions are at the core of the social determinants of health. These interventions can provide a strong base for future health of children with FASD because healthy mothers are more likely to be involved in care, are more likely to adhere to treatment and have healthier attachments to their children. This healthy attachment and family cohesion is emphasized in the Towards Healthy Outcomes for Individuals with FASD model developed by the Intervention Network Action Team of the CanFASD Research Network. Children who suffer from impaired detachments are at a higher risk of negative outcomes later in life, so a sense of stability, security and high family cohesion can act as protective factors. This document also contains a wealth of effective interventions which the committee could explore in larger detail.

With so much knowledge on early intervention, why are parents and children with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder still struggling? As Senator Ravalia aptly explained, provinces and territories each have different standards and resources allocated to the disorder. Although there are 73 diagnostic clinics in Canada, none are in rural areas, and they are not evenly distributed.

Diagnosis remains elusive for many due to the lack of resources dedicated to FASD. Some parents might fear obtaining a diagnosis because of the stigma associated with drinking during pregnancy.

In my home province of New Brunswick, we are fortunate to have the Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder Centre of Excellence, located in Dieppe. They provide a range of services including prevention, diagnosis, intervention and support services, with special attention given to mothers’ needs and trauma. They now serve over 800 families a year. And although the centre of excellence is considered the gold standard in Canada, over 300 families in my region are still waiting for diagnosis, and many more cannot even get a referral because of circumstances out of their control. All of this is to note that with more than 4,000 youth in the school system in our area estimated to have FASD, most without a diagnosis, it is clear that the resources do not meet the needs.

Colleagues, there is a tremendous amount of research on FASD, and evidence-based best practices have been implemented in various ways across Canada. There may be other questions to explore, such as the father or male partner role in this issue. At committee, I hope that special attention will be paid to the social determinants of health for mothers, children and the family, and I hope the study will be bolstered with gender-based analysis and will take into consideration the many intersecting factors that lead to FASD.

The social determinants of health are at the core of prevention and lifetime interventions, and they deeply inform the treatment models that have emerged. Bill S-253 can provide a framework on which we can build, as an act of reconciliation and public health, to guide best practices in prevention, diagnosis and intervention across Canada.

I look forward to the next step by sending Bill S-253 to committee for further study. Thank you.

Hon Senators: Agreed.

(Debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Ravalia, seconded by the Honourable Senator Duncan, for the second reading of Bill S-253, An Act respecting a national framework for fetal alcohol spectrum disorder.

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): With leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 4-15(3), I move the adjournment of the debate in the name of Senator Carignan for the balance of his time.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

(At 6:28 p.m., the Senate was continued until tomorrow at 2 p.m.)

Hon. Pat Duncan: Honourable senators, I rise today to express my support for Bill S-253, An Act respecting a national framework for fetal alcohol spectrum disorder.

I will begin by expressing my sincere thanks to my friend Senator Ravalia, his team and my own staff for their work and efforts on this bill, as well as to my colleagues who have spoken on this initiative before me. They have eloquently covered the impacts and the data showing how severe the challenges are. I’m also grateful, colleagues, for your patience as I have gathered my thoughts to speak.

My understanding of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, FASD, has evolved over the almost 30 years that I have been dealing with this. In 1998, my colleague in opposition, Yukon MLA Sue Edelman, the health critic, gave notice in the Yukon Legislative Assembly of a motion that read in part:

THAT it is the opinion of this House that:

(1) there are no accurate or approximate numbers of Yukoners who suffer from fetal alcohol syndrome or fetal alcohol effects;

(2) fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal alcohol effects are completely preventable if parents do not drink during pregnancy;

(3) there are few if any supports for families and for those who suffer from fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal alcohol effects once they have left the education system — and this is particularly true in rural Yukon . . . .

The motion then called upon the Yukon government to provide support for early intervention and prenatal programs that prevent fetal alcohol syndrome, FAS, and fetal alcohol effects, FAE. In addition, she urged that the government:

. . . allow children who have been affected lead happy, productive lives in our society by being properly prepared for school and by giving their families ways to support these special children, then by examining the gaps in the service to youth and adults . . . by using our resources wisely by coordinating services to persons with fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal alcohol effects, and their families.

As honourable senators can tell, the language has changed since then. FAS and FAE are now FASD, recognizing the wide-ranging symptoms and conditions associated with FASD.

When in government with the opportunity to act upon the motion, I raised this issue at the national level. With the support of then-Alberta premier Ralph Klein and at our Yukon government’s request, the Alberta Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission conducted a comprehensive review of Yukon’s alcohol and drug addiction services and program delivery. Our government initiatives included taking a more aggressive and proactive approach in the Yukon’s FAS/FAE strategy, one which recognized prevention as the only cure. We continued our work with our southern and western neighbours, initiating the Prairie Northern Conference on Fetal Alcohol Syndrome.

Honourable senators, a quarter of a century later, I find myself in the same discussions, albeit with changed terminology. Sadly, the statistics, such as we know them, remain the same, continuing or rising in this entirely preventable situation. Politicians, even those with a long history of good work, taking a great deal of time, might have thrown up their hands in despair. Thankfully, we have not and we are not giving up. The bill before us is an example of our commitment.

There has been progress over the past 25 years, and I would like to share some of the improvements we’ve seen. Specifically, in the Yukon, the story of progress is encouraging. In 2019, the Yukon government established the Yukon FASD Action Plan. Progress on the action plan was considerably slowed during the pandemic.

In January 2021, as part of a government-to-government relationship, the Council of Yukon First Nations, or CYFN, hired a coordinator for the FASD action plan. This individual works very closely with the director of the Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Society Yukon, FASSY. The director recently provided me with an update on their activities. The FASD action plan committees that have been established so far are awareness, prevention, diagnostic and, of course, the interagency committee. The knowledge exchange committee is anticipated to be developed as things progress. The groups are still looking to put together the family support committee, comprised of those who care for people with FASD, and an evaluation committee will also be established.

FASSY and CYFN will also be putting more pregnancy tests out in the communities and in Whitehorse. They are free of charge and available in bars and in the Yukon University buildings. The Yukon University has established campuses in most locations and communities in the Yukon. Information will also be publicly available in the form of posters at doctors’ offices.

As the CYFN coordinator stated to me, “Blatant advertising will eventually drill the message of abstinence during pregnancy is best.”

Honourable senators, this express message is included in another bill before us, Bill S-254, introduced by our colleague Senator Brazeau. Thank you, Senators Brazeau, Miville-Dechêne and others who have recognized Yukon’s initiatives with regard to warning labels on alcohol. I will leave my further remarks on that issue to another day.

Honourable senators, Yukon was also the first jurisdiction in Canada to respond in a fulsome way to the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. The Yukon strategy entitled Changing the Story to Upholding Dignity and Justice: Yukon’s Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women, Girls and Two-spirit+ People Strategy from 2020 specifically mentioned FASD:

. . . it will take coordinated efforts to implement this Strategy. Women, girls, and Two-spirit+ individuals living with FASD or other disabilities will be fully included and considered.

The coordinator also shared with me that in the last six months the number of clientele that FASSY has been assisting went from 69 to 84 persons. Her educated guess is that this is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. If they can manage to take the stigma off of FASD and educate people about it, the numbers should only go higher as people are made aware of their services.

Yukon has also dedicated funding — put the money where their mouth is — to FASD. The 2021 budget documents note that the FASSY received close to $800,000 in funding, which included funding to the interagency committee.

Nationally, since these discussions in the Yukon — some more than 20 years ago — the Canada FASD Research Network, CanFASD, begun in 2013, has grown in strength. The network’s initial intention was to increase the amount of FASD research within the provinces and territories of the Canada Northwest FASD Partnership.

The results significantly exceeded strategic goals, and, today, CanFASD operates across Canada. They support all stakeholders, finding innovative and practical ways to help persons with FASD, their families and their caregivers and assisting governments at all levels as well as practitioners and educational institutions in creating and disseminating evidence-based research and knowledge.

Another example of action was noted by our colleague Senator Colin Deacon: the Nova Scotia-based Strongest Families Institute. They offer their support services in the Yukon as well. They are truly a coast-to-coast-to-coast initiative.

Senators, I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the volunteer efforts of FASSY and one volunteer in particular: Judy Pakozdy. This person has championed the cause of FASD for years, raising awareness in the Yukon and working with, supporting and showing up for those affected. A clear and direct individual, she has personally paid for newspaper advertising to raise awareness and urged governments to action. The ads were published as we gathered on the ninth day of the ninth month, FASD Awareness Day. She spoke to me at public events in a very clear way. She said, “We don’t need more words. We don’t need more plans. We need money and we need action.”

The bill is the action we in the Senate can provide in response to Judy’s plea. The money? That is not so simple. The Senate does not get to introduce a money item or demand that the government spend money, as we all know.

Today, I want to speak to the action.

The bill before us calls for a national strategy, a framework to coordinate our efforts to fight FASD. As Senator Ravalia, the sponsor, said in his speech to us, it will include measures to standardize guidelines, improve diagnostic and data reporting tools, expand knowledge bases, facilitate information exchanges and increase public and professional awareness, among other things. The bill is our specific action that we here in the Senate can provide in response to Ms. Pakozdy’s plea. Senator Ravalia’s bill is a major step in the right direction, and, perhaps, the longest and strongest step the Senate of Canada could take.

Today, I would like to strongly encourage senators to take this step, to walk together, to support the fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, or FASD, community and call upon the government for a national framework. Thank you. Mahsi’cho. Gùnáłchîsh.

Hon. Michèle Audette: [Editor’s Note: Senator Audette spoke in an Indigenous language.]

Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill C-226, An Act respecting the development of a national strategy to assess, prevent and address environmental racism and to advance environmental justice.

In preparation, I did my homework so I could understand this definition and where it comes from. According to Robert Bullard, the father of environmental justice, I have come to understand that it means the following, and I quote:

Any policy, practice or directive that differentially affects or disadvantages (where intended or unintended) individuals, groups or communities based on race.

As I continued my research, I read Elizabeth May’s speech on this bill at second reading and I also came to understand the following, and I quote:

One of the things I know from cleaning up the Sydney tar ponds with Clotilda is that we can recognize as a reality that toxic chemicals do not discriminate. They do not pay attention to the colour of our skin when they lodge in our body, when they pass through placenta to children, when they cause cancer and when they cause birth defects. They do not care about the colour of our skin. However, the public policy that puts indigenous peoples and communities of colour far more frequently at risk of being exposed to toxic chemicals does notice skin colour. It does notice whether we are marginalized or not. It does notice whether we have money or not.

First Peoples have been experiencing environmental racism ever since the Doctrine of Discovery emerged from the papal bull Romanus Pontifex issued in 1455.

According to the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, this doctrine, which relates to the older concept of terra nullius, has enshrined the principle whereby any Christian monarch who discovers non-Christian lands has the right to proclaim them his own, because they belong to no one.

It took the Vatican 568 years to repudiate the Doctrine of Discovery. I’m sure my colleagues will agree that this is one more step towards reconciliation — an important step.

However, today, in 2023, the pillaging of land and resources, the lack of access to or the isolation of reserves are still real. The damage and harmful impacts have continued to this day.

Environmental racism is also the cause of the community impoverishment, and the loss of our culture and our customs. This environmental racism has also diminished our food sources.

Environmental racism also plays a role in the creation of mining projects without the participation or consent of communities, and it pollutes the environment of these communities, their fauna, their flora and their waterways.

My home in Matimekush-Lac-John, Schefferville, has the biggest 18 holes in the world. However, I’m not talking about golf holes, but mining holes. In this very community, Conrad André, in an article published on June 8, 2022 on Radio‑Canada’s Internet site, asked the following question, and I quote:

How is it that IOC makes billions, but there is not one single Innu millionaire here?

In that very community, Mathieu André, an Innu born 50 kilometres northwest of Schefferville, discovered the first iron deposit near Knob Lake in the 1930s.

This discovery led in part to the iron rush in the border region of Labrador and Quebec. Mathieu André is now in Caribou country, but his son Luc says that after his father’s discovery, Labrador Mining was able to develop the land, promising the people and the Innus a percentage of the profits it would make from the deposits.

However, he said, and I quote:

We never got anything. We met the mining company and we were told that if they had to give something to one person, they would have to give to everyone.

[English]

In Ontario, Aamjiwnaang First Nation is surrounded by 50 industrial plants within a 24-kilometre radius of its territory. Their people are disproportionately exposed to toxic substances such as sulphur dioxide, benzene, mercury and others. A 30‑year‑old chair of the local environment committee, Janelle Nahmabin, says she has grown increasingly frustrated at seeing her community shoulder the health risks of industries operating in the area:

Quite frankly, we’ve been here for a millennia — forever. For us to have to continuously be the ones accommodating, I’m done with that. I’m done with having to compromise our health, our mental well-being, our safety, for everybody else.

She also adds that asthma and other breathing problems, along with rashes, headaches and high cancer rates, are among the most prevalent health issues on the reserve.

Shelburne, Nova Scotia, according to a CBC interview with Louise Delisle, a resident of Shelburne, the community’s history with cancer, disease and death are connected to the dumping ground for industrial and sometimes even medical waste just around the corner. Ms. Delisle said:

The majority of the black men in the community have died from cancer . . . There’s a community of widows in Shelburne. That’s what it is.

We also find a map compiled by the Environmental Noxiousness, Racial Inequities and Community Health Project showing dozens of waste disposal sites in close proximity to communities, either Black communities or Indigenous populations. The map also encompasses dozens of stories similar to Shelburne’s story, where we can find a dump and slaughterhouse built near Halifax’s Africville in the late 1700s, a paper mill’s effluent pond next to the Pictou Landing First Nation and yet more landfills built in the Black community of Lincolnville in Guysborough County.

Dr. Ingrid Waldron, who also co-produced the film There’s Something in the Water, says:

It’s not only about health and stress. It’s about lack of power, that you’ve placed certain industries in certain communities without consulting with them. You’ve taken away their power, you’ve taken away their voice, and you’ve placed it in communities that are not only racialized but that are also poor.

[Translation]

The Horne smelter in Rouyn-Noranda, Quebec, which has been singled out for releasing above-acceptable levels of 23 contaminants, is now planning to expand a buffer zone. A total of 200 homes will be demolished and the people who live there will have to relocate — families, children, Quebecers and many others. Why is this happening? Because the smelter is exempted from Quebec’s airborne arsenic emission standard, as it was in operation long before these environmental standards came into effect.

Need I remind everyone that the concentration of arsenic in young children’s fingernails is four times higher in this region? Need I remind everyone that in 1940, again in the same region, no one could swim in Osisko Lake, between Noranda and Rouyn? In 1979, the Quebec government was warned of the dangers the Horne smelter posed to children in the Notre-Dame district, who had two to three times higher levels of arsenic in their hair.

[English]

The same issues have been raised in Canadian Family Physician, the official journal of the College of Family Physicians of Canada, last August. The abstract to this article reads as follows:

You are a family physician doing a locum in northwestern Ontario. Your next patient is a 6-year-old child who presents with chronic fatigue and paresthesia in their extremities. Upon physical examination, you also discover bilateral hearing impairment. You recall reading in the news that, years ago, 10,000 kg of mercury were dumped into the Wabigoon River, thereby polluting downstream water and poisoning the fish that sustain communities such as . . . (Grassy Narrows) First Nation. In addition to other investigations, you conduct a 24-h urine mercury test for the patient and ascertain that they have abnormal mercury levels. How do you treat this patient? How do you respond to this issue at the community level? To what extent do you consider how the environment, history, and economic factors contributed to this patient’s presentation?

This is despite the fact we know that Indigenous communities are often the most impacted when the worst happens, like the two oil spills in Alberta last year which were identified months before First Nations were notified.

[Translation]

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples sets the minimum standards for the survival, dignity and well-being of Indigenous peoples of the world, and it must be implemented in Canada.

A national strategy to assess and prevent environmental racism must absolutely be rooted in that declaration and carry the voices of the original stewards of these lands.

[English]

Other interesting solutions are put forward by the authors of the article in Canadian Family Physician, which the strategy should take into account:

First, as health care providers and Canadians, we need to educate ourselves about the true history of Canada. Second, we should become aware that environmental racism exists in our country, and as per the CanMEDS-Family Medicine Indigenous Health Supplement, we must “challenge the systems that we work in to make changes to racist processes and policy.” We know racialized communities are disproportionately affected by environmental hazards and we know this has profound health implications. If we want to address health from a proactive and preventive standpoint, we must advocate for sustainable change and listen to the voices of those who are affected.

[Translation]

A national strategy must also include provisions related to education, public input in environmental decision making, self‑determination for communities in matters related to water, food production, housing distribution, energy, transportation and the creation of an environmental bill of rights.

Simply put, environmental racism is very much a reality in Canada. As the United Nations has declared, a healthy environment is a human right. Let’s give ourselves the means to counter environmental racism and move towards environmental justice.

I say to you once again, we cannot change history, but we can and we must change our present, to adopt a more responsible attitude in an effort to fix the mistakes of the past and to write a new chapter together.

Thank you, senator, for giving us the opportunity to have this debate. Of course I support this bill. Together, I know we have the power to change things, big and small.

Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Bernard, debate adjourned.)

[English]